New Class of Genes Discovered

HarryGenes writes "Reuters is reporting that Scientists Find New Type of Gene in Junk DNA. The research from Harvard Medical School describes a discovery in the Yeast Genome of a new class of gene that regulates the neighboring gene through the production of its RNA product. This has much broader implications than the article lets on to. Assuming these same type of genes exist in Humans and other organisms, the whole science behind gene expression and gene mapping will be changed dramatically. This type of mechanism can explain a lot of the 'unexplainable'. This is really exciting. I have been working in gene mapping for years and always felt that the 'junk' was there for a reason."

Comments

bad article

[merdark]

As usual, the quality of a mainstream news outlet reporting on science news is bad. This really has nothing to do with 'junk DNA' from what I can tell. Also, the term 'junk DNA' is terrible.
There are repeats (sometimes referred to as 'junk DNA') and there are introns and intergenic regions with no *known* function (also referred to as 'junk DNA').

So while it is technically true that the gene was found in 'junk DNA', it's also true that EVERY new gene is found in junk DNA. That is not what is interesting here at all.

Basically, they found a gene that turns another gene on or off via it's RNA product. This is what the intereseting news is.

Mmm, sexy.

[mopslik]

Human females have a more pronounced season of going into and out of heat.
Get an extra furrowed forehead... [and] large hairy ears

Well, those two should help cancel each other out, no?

Good article

[cariaso1]

Until this article was published, 'junk dna' would be considered the correct term for this region. Broadly speaking, the term suggests that there is no known function for the region. We don't know much beyon "is a region is a coding region?" and "is a region regulatory?". Now this region can be classified as regulatory, but it uses a mechanism never before observed. That is news.

Much more information can be found in this article taken from pubmed.

Stealth regulation: biological circuits with small RNA switches

Re:The more you know.......

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet there are people prepared to unleash modified genes on the world saying that they **know** there is no risk.

Every time somebody has a child they "unleash modified genes on the world". When people say that there is no risk, they mean there's no risk above and beyond normal behaviour.

Re:The more you know.......

[Shihar]

I don't **know** that the meat I am eating is free of mad cow disease. I don't really care though because I live with one a few billion odds.

There is certainly a risk involved with genetically modified things. Hell, we know this for a fact because we have been doing it for hundreds of years through more primitive means, and we have screwed up in the past. That said, there comes a point when you need to go over your fear and dive in. We will never know anything for sure, and pretty sure is good enough most of the time. I am pretty sure I am not going to die in a car accident on the way to work each morning and that is good enough for me.

Now, there are plenty of reasons to be weary of modified plants and animals, but all of them are patenting and legal issues. As to the raw science of it though, such concerns are negligible with enough foresight. I don't know about you, but I would merrily risk two or three people in an entire population dying because genetically modified super corn gives them an allergic reaction then watch a few hundred thousand people die because their refuse to grow in the barren land that they live.

People need to put a careful eye to potential risks and rewards. Humans are horribly crafty bastards. Sure, we screw up for time to time, but we are not all that bad at dealing with the consequences. If you need any proof that we fix things more then we break them, you need only look at the average human life expectancy has changed over time.